Twin story but without the planet ???

[Kedas]

Everybody knows when one twin is traveling fast and comes back he/she will be younger that the one that stayed home.

 

BUT something I don't understand:

imagine an emty universe with only two twins each with their spaceship.

Now the distance between the two is increasing with almost licht speed and after a while they found notting and come back and meet again.

 

now the question:

which of the two twins is older than the other ?

 

if there is a planet hanging on one of the twins feed then they say its the one on the planet.

what is it I'm missing ?

Does that planet make so much difference ?

[JaKiri]

The one that undergoes acceleration is the one that undergoes time dialation.

 

If there is no acceleration, then they are both simultaenously the older one and the younger one, as they will be the older one from their own point of view and the younger one from the other's.

[Kedas]

The one that undergoes acceleration is the one that undergoes time dialation.

 

So time differences can only occur when there are accelerations.

But the age difference also change when they are longer apart although the acceleration curve is the same.

So time difference also change with a constant speed? right?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Kedas

 

So time differences can only occur when there are accelerations.

But the age difference also change when they are longer apart although the acceleration curve is the same.

So time difference also change with a constant speed? right?

 

OK, special relativity assumes that all rest frames are equally valid as eachother.

 

Lets say you've got the planet.

 

The guy moving away from it (at a constant velocity) can assume (correctly) that he is at rest and the planet is moving away from him, so they suffer the effects of time dialation.

 

It's only when he turns round (he ACCELERATES) towards the planet/other brother, that he can no longer be a rest frame (as he's accelerating), and hence the other one must be 'correct'. That's the simple explanation, it gets a bit sillier if you want the full one, because the gravity of the planet is an acceleration as well, but this is the essence of the solution.

[Kedas]

That's the simple explanation, it gets a bit sillier if you want the full one

:haha:

 

 

Thanks for your input

I'm sure I will understand it better but it will need time.

 

Maybe accelerating to almost light speed will give me the needed time although coming back will be needed to 'collect' that extra time

[JaKiri]

Your own individual time never changes, that's the point. Just everyone's relative to you

[Kedas]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Your own individual time never changes, that's the point. Just everyone's relative to you

 

Damn, than I will just have to think faster

 

BTW thanks for the very fast replies

[Star-struck]

Good "timing", I was just thinking on this. First of all, how do we "know" that the twins paradox is true? If someone ages more slowly during a trip in space why is it more likely to be because "time" itself has slowed rather than effects caused by near light speed travel, weightlessness, etc. That would be like saying that if I drive faster than my twin brother every time I drive then I will age more slowly than him. In that case, we should all strive to drive as fast as we can because we will live longer (assuming speeding doesn't get us killed). In reality, if I drive faster I will just get where I am going faster. A second is still a second, an hour an hour. I may experience more in that amount of "time" but the interval of time has not changed. Time is not something of substance that can slow down or speed up. Time is made up of units of measure and is constant. As for the "experiment" where a clock on a plane realized a 60 billionth of a second discrepancy, more likely the operation of the clock was effected by altitude, speed, or pressurization of the plane's cabin than did "time" slow.

[JaKiri]

I was going to make a long and involved post dealing with such things as the immense amount of evidence (such as the lifetimes of subatomic particles increasing as you'd expect if the Lorenz Transforms were correct), but then I realised you didn't actually know what was going on and instead I'm just going to point you in the direction of the sticky about Special Relativity and try to introduce you to all this exciting new physics that was theorised well over a century ago, and is proved any time a particle accelerator is run, in addition to all the other experiments.

[Star-struck]

Why is it that a couple of individuals here seem more intent on informing people of how little they know vice participating constructively in this forum?

[Sayonara]

Someone I know who will remain nameless is the same way.

 

I think the general idea is "if I can put in the years of effort and sacrifice to learn this stuff, so can you".

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Star-struck

Why is it that a couple of individuals here seem more intent on informing people of how little they know vice participating constructively in this forum?

 

I can bear to point out inaccuracies (of the philosophical and factual kind) once, twice, maybe more. But when every thread on a topic contains the same factual inaccuracies (a very very good example of this is Peter Dunn's 'Quantum Reality' thread, which contains the exact misunderstandings that feature in his previous gravity thread. I pointed them out there, and he posted them all over again oblivious.

 

It's much easier, especially when we're talking about SR, to just point someone in the direction of the SR thread at the top of this very forum (unless someone's removed it without telling me).

 

I've spent time and effort to read and understand.

 

You don't think you should.

 

I am not the arrogant one.

[Sayonara]

He was talking about you?

 

Bwaa haaa.

[Dudde]

and because some of the other people don't seem to understand how much they don't know or realize, and keep going with one argument until they just get bumped out...with that number of posts he's sure to have been in quite a few of those;) so we nip it in the bud when we can and just point things out

 

not trying to make you look stupid, just to correct you...(notice my post a few minutes ago in chemistry..x_x..sleepy time...I wish..)

[Star-struck]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

I've spent time and effort to read and understand.

 

You don't think you should.

 

I am not the arrogant one.

 

First of all, my reply never inferred anything about arrogance. Just wanted to point that out so that we know who first made this a character issue.

 

You assume, and wrongly so, that I don't bother to take time and effort to read and understand. I most certainly do read and try to understand. That is what brought about the questions. I will likely be able to answer my own questions, and satisfy my own doubts, with yet more reading . But it is also nice to post here so that people can help along the way. That is what this FORUM is all about: People communicating in hopes of furthering their understanding.

 

Different people may take different routes in order to increase their understanding of things. That someone else's route is different than yours, even vastly so, doesn't make their journey any less credible or important. The proof is in the pudding. In this instance, it is not the journey but arriving at the destination that counts.

 

Don't be so quick to discount someone's ideas. Often times, the most direct route is not the best path to a destination. Many breakthroughs have come on the heels of unorthodox thinking. Also, failure still furthers the effort. Sometimes, knowing which way NOT to go can be just as important as knowing which way to go. Such important facts can be gleaned from failed attempts.

 

The fact that you are annoyed that people continue to state things which you disagree with, and who's discrepancies you've pointed out countless times already, displays arrogance.

 

If someone posts something that you disagree with, and you feel obliged to "set them straight" with facts, that's one thing. That is being helpful. Becoming insulting with comments like, "you didn't actually know what was going on," only serves to demote people. Acting this way, when people may not understand what you are saying or choose to disagree, is arrogant.

 

You could choose, once you have set the facts straight once, to feel that you have done all you can for that person and abstain. You choose instead to become insulting and condescending.

 

The golden rule...if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all.

 

Now, getting back to the orignal issue (and if you are not to bothered to be helpful), you mentioned that operation of a particle accelerator yields proof of the twins paradox. Could you expound on this for me, please? I'm interested. Do accelerated particles show either a prolongation or decrease in lifespan or something?

[JaKiri]

I do set the facts straight. However, simple misunderstandings are one thing (as this thread has shown); not even bothering to check the factual content of your post when much information on that topic is available online (see: PD again; he combines it with stunning arrogance as well) and indeed ON THIS SITE that I get exasperated.

[Star-struck]

I implore you not to react to me based on your frustration with PD. Let Peter go on his course. He harms no one. Who knows where his journey will take him. This forum seems to be populated more with curious layman than by qualified scientists. You could likely spend a lot of time being irritated by people's posts if you wanted to so waste your energy.

[Intelligence]

Hi Kedas - I think I have a comment which would help.

 

The twins age changes relative to eachother when their speed and acceleration changes relative to eachother.

 

If they're both flying through space at 99% C they are the same age.

 

Think about it this was: let's say you have a twin. Right now you're both hurling through space at a sick speed. But you're the same age because you're both moving through space at the same speed as the earth is.

[JaKiri]

This is http://www.SCIENCEforums.net. If he wants to be demonstrateably wrong he can do it elsewhere.

[JaKiri]

Intel: I think I covered this.

[Star-struck]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is http://www.SCIENCEforums.net. If he wants to be demonstrateably wrong he can do it elsewhere.

 

Or he can do it here and you can choose to ignore it vice let it ruin your day.

 

Thanks, Intel, for trying to get us back on track. I'm interested in learning more on the particle accelerator results that back up the twins paradox. Can anyone speak on that briefly?

[JaKiri]

It's support for Special Relativity, which the twins paradox is a result of.

 

Particles with a known and predictable lifetime have different lifetimes when moving with velocity with respect to the rest frame of the accelerator. The lifetimes are mapped with unbelieveably large accuracy onto the Lorenz Transformations of Special Relativity.

 

I also stated that in the original post.

[Intelligence]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's support for Special Relativity, which the twins paradox is a result of.

 

Particles with a known and predictable lifetime have different lifetimes when moving with velocity with respect to the rest frame of the accelerator. The lifetimes are mapped with unbelieveably large accuracy onto the Lorenz Transformations of Special Relativity.

 

I also stated that in the original post.

 

 

He said it.

 

A particle has a known lifetime relative to the observe (whcih could be considered a static third particle)

 

When they go fast they live longer. Simple as that.

 

I also will in my next post point on an interesting extra finding.....beware of the truth.....

[Intelligence]

as stated above by jakiri particle are able to LIVE LONGER when TRAVELING FASTER.

 

NOW - You are thinking wow if I travel at C I could get some much more freaking stuff done!!!

 

WRONG.

 

Indeed you would live longer, but in fact it is found that one can only complete the SAME IDENTICAL amount of tasks which is in ratio to the increase of time.

 

In other words if you were going at such a speed that you would live twice as long......your mental processes, your physical movement, your perception extra would be HALF THE SPEED.

 

Further sealing the deal that to YOU nothing is changes. You cannot tell time is slower and you can't tell your processes are at a much lesser speed.

 

GOT IT? GET IT? GOOD.

[Star-struck]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's support for Special Relativity, which the twins paradox is a result of.

 

Particles with a known and predictable lifetime have different lifetimes when moving with velocity with respect to the rest frame of the accelerator. The lifetimes are mapped with unbelieveably large accuracy onto the Lorenz Transformations of Special Relativity.

 

I also stated that in the original post.

Wow, great, yay, you already stated that. Are you a glory-hound or what! Look, if you are too bothered that you have already "stated" it then feel free to abstain. I wouldn't want to put you out any further. I may continue to asks questions that you have already answered in the past, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of your pissiness.

 

Now, with regards to these particles who's lifespans are known and predictable, when they are moving with velocity are their lifespans lengthened or shortened in relation to their established lifespan?